WALKER V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 DUANE ISAAC WALKER, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** CASE NO. 03-2213 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 97-28661B ** Opinion filed May 5, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Manuel Alvarez, Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FLETCHER, WELLS, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Duane Isaac Walker contends that the trial court erred by denying him a Steele 1 hearing.2 However a Steele hearing is not required as the trial court considered Walker s belated motion for post-conviction relief and denied it on the merits3 as well as on procedural grounds. Affirmed. 1 Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999)(holding that a prisoner is entitled to a hearing on a claim that he or she missed the deadline to file a Rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner; if the prisoner prevails at the hearing he or she is authorized to file belatedly a Rule 3.850 motion). 2 In Steele, at 934-35, the court directly amended Rule 3.850(b) to provide for a belated appeal in situations such as Steele s. See Rule 3.850(b)(3)[2004]. 3 Holding that Walker s claim was refuted by the plea colloquy. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.